Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Do Same-Sex Couples Deserve a Chance to Get Married? - Part 1

From the Wittenberg Door archives:

Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman recently reversed his position regarding the redefinition of marriage. The catalyst for the change was the revelation that his son is a homosexual. In an Op-Ed for The Columbus Dispatch, Senator Portman provides his rationale for the change. His reasons fall into two major categories: social and religious. In this post we’ll take a look at his reasons pertaining to the social sphere. In the next installment The Deacon will consider the religious.

The Arguments

After learning of his son’s sexual desires, Senator Portman spent the next two years thinking through his “position in a much deeper way.” After giving “a great deal” of thought to the issue, he changed his position for the following reasons:

It'll make his son happy

Marriage should be available to any two people

It’s politically conservative

It's good for families

It doesn’t undercut traditional marriage

Young people overwhelmingly support the change

A lot could be said about each of these points, but most fall under the two categories below.

Redefining Marriage will Benefit More People in Love

I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married.

“Love” is the typical reason given for redefining marriage; folks who love each other ought to be allowed to marry. Senator Portman makes this the first reason in his case for the redefinition of marriage, although he offers an interesting caveat: “two people.” On what grounds does he limit the number to two? If love is the determining factor, why can’t three people who love each other marry? Or six? Or rub-a-dub-dub 12 men in a tub? And if I love my neighbor’s wife, can we book the bridal shower? How about if I set my affections upon a potted plant? “But we love each other!”

Indeed, if love is the deciding factor then all “loving” relationships are due government preference; and if all are “preferred” then none are, nor can any be denied such preference.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch . . . The government doesn’t give a hoot about love; it’s not a living, loving, taxing Hallmark card. When I married the fetching Mrs. Catechizer I didn’t have to sign a notarized affidavit swearing to my undying love for her; there was no “On a Scale from 1 to 10” love-meter on the marriage application. Nope. I paid my $10, singed my name on the dotted line, took my vows before the magistrate, and then headed off to the Vegas strip with my shiny new bride.

It should be pointed out too that the state is not stopping those with homosexual desires from marrying. They can marry any willing, unmarried, of-age opposite-sex person they wish; same as those with heterosexual desires. The state doesn’t care about our desires, nor does it care about “love.”

Redefining Marriage is Good for Families and Therefore Good for Society

We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.

This argument assumes there’s no difference between men and women, something the Left has been peddling since the 60s. Most of us are members of one of the two sexes and have experience dealing with the opposite sex (that was a joke, by the way). So for those of us who haven’t been to graduate school there is no reason to entertain the “no difference” topic further.

So the question is, Is it good for families? No doubt that there are same-sex coupled homes raising wonderful children. And we all know opposite-sex couples who manage horrible homes. But neither of these are the issue. The question is should the State promote same-sex families. I believe the answer to be no. Reason being, children deserve opposite-sex parents, because both the mother and the father contribute uniquely to the child’s life. So when there’s a choice involved, society should always do what’s best for the child

Redefining Marriage is Not in the State’s Interest

Despite Senator Portman’s claims, redefining marriage is not in society’s interest. The State’s (government and citizenry) only interest in marriage is that it is the best way for society to perpetuate itself. Mommies and daddies are from where the next generation of citizens will come. And the best environment for the raising of responsible citizens is a married, monogamist, heterosexual household. Married and monogamist because that brings stability to the home; heterosexual because both the mother and the father bring something in particular to the childrearing enterprise.

This unit is the best way to secure society’s future. Therefore, the State has an interest in favoring and protecting marriage between a man and a woman. It has no such interest in same-sex unions.